There are many advantages to marrying under common law.
- You can be married by a family member or friend of your own choice.
- You will not have a stranger performing the ceremony.
- You are not entering into contract with the State.
- You are not bound by The Marriage Act 1961
- You are free from legal turmoil if you decide to end the marriage.
It is said that a Common Law Marriage does not involve a ceremony. This is incorrect. It’s well known that couples who live together for a certain amount of time are considered legally married under common law. the couple can also have a wedding ceremony under common law. They can have a traditional wedding with all the trimmings. And this includes:
- a church wedding
- a wedding dress
- a wedding cake
- the wedding rings
- have a marriage certificate
- can go away on a honeymoon, why not?
Nothing needs to be lost by opting for a common law wedding as opposed to statute law. It is still a traditional wedding that is a personal contract with added benefits. Why wouldn’t it be? After all they’re not marrying the State.
What happens also is that the romance is not lost in a legal process. It is a personal affair and there would be still a proposal etc. A common law marriage is more intimate and personal than a statute law marriage.
There is no contract with the State they sign so couples are not bound by the State and by the Marriage Act 1961. Contracting with the State becomes very expensive if things go wrong and they decide to end the marriage. Nearly everyone knows someone who’s had a messy divorce. That doesn’t happen under a common law marriage unless the couple involved want it to be and that’s not very likely. Only lawyers win when couples split and divorce under statute law. Everyone knows that.
A common law marriage is different because you are in control and not lawyers. Tradition is that he couple discuss their wishes with family and fritend before the marriage takes place. They agree on what they want to happen if they did decide to separate some time down the track. Then their agreement becomes a matter of honour and the relatives will do what is best for all concern. That is a much better arrangement and it is a more civilized way of ending a marriage if they part company. Common law weddings are coming back into vogue in mainstream Australia. It is not a privilege that is reserved only for certain community groups. If it was once it is not any more.
The association of UPMART in partnership with the church of SOCIA will marry couples at common law. This service is also at no cost to the couple getting married. A stipulation though, is that the couple to be married must first attend an UCLC to be eligible for the marriage service. This stipulation is so that they become aware of how to obtain full benefit by marrying at common law. Couples also may help design their marriage certificate. Designing your own common law marriage certificate is a personal affair as opposed what you get when marrying under statute law.
We would like to know your thoughts or experiences on the topic and commenting is encouraged. What is your opinion on a wedding ceremony that is under common law?
To find out more visit: www.upmart.org
Well, I see the white-ants are out working away to smear the meaning, beauty and name of common law. I can see community’s opinion of common law could easily become confused on what is common law. Statute law lawyers, supported by journalists, will go out of their way and relish an opportunity to take advantage of community’s ignorance on common law or what it’s true meaning may be. By not understanding we could become vulnerable and we could believe a distorted and untrue interpretation of common law.
An indication of attempted denigration of common law meaning is surfacing, and is evident in an article found recently. The Herald-Sun newspaper, Durham USA, has an article posted by John McCann. It implies a negative impression of common law. He reported on a conviction for robbery and suggests that it’s supported by common law. Is he serious? A robbery supported by law!
If not already confused we would be after reading his article. Also it has bad spelling, bad grammar and is an overall incoherent mixture of events that does not relate to each other and especially not to common law.
A misleading article deceives the public.
The article is sick deluded and doesn’t making sense. How could it pass editors for publication? The article is void of facts and of a storyline. It consists of words thrown together to associate negativity with common law. Certainly, I will agree theft and murder are violations of common law but he doesn’t imply that at all. Instead he suggests the opposite. He has thrown common law in with claims of, felony of speeding (what’s that?) racially motivated robbery attacks, drugs, manufacturing, possession. What the….!?
The article should be a grave concern to us all. To know that we are regarded so ignorant as not to ask questions on such an article. To tarnish something so pure and so lovely as common law and associate it with crime and corruption is in itself, a crime. It’s a crime against humanity and against community.
I was not able to make sense of the article at all so I decided to contact John, as the author and ask him a few questions and I wanted to find out his knowledge on common law.
In my first email I wrote:
I found your article regarding common-law robberies in Durham. Could you tell me, what is a common law robbery?” Jill
John replied very quickly to my email, which was great!
John wrote: “I checked with Durham’s top public defender, who defined common-law robbery as, ‘Unlawful taking of property from the person of another by violence or intimidation.’
I replied and wrote:
Thank you for the reply.
I’m sorry to say though his definition of common-law robbery doesn’t make sense.
If it doesn’t make sense to the average person then it is not common law.
Common law is the law of the land and it can not be used as a negative such as is in this article, and make any sense.
Do you have a defined definition of common law?” Jill.
John again replied quickly – On 2010-11-17 11:57, John McCann wrote:
“seems to me in regular talk we’re just saying the guys stole stuff from other folks”.
I again replied and wrote: “But only the very ignorant would not question a claim that stealing is supported by common law”.
“Didn’t you write the article, John?”
I’m still waiting for a reply.
Truth is, the majority of the legal profession rely on statute law to make large sums of money. They don’t want us knowing the benefits of common law in the community. They make money by bad laws passed in parliament. Lawyers rely on community fear to uphold bad laws. They in turn fear an interest in common law or any proper understand of it in the community. That’s where the white-ants come in, to make sure they install fear and distract us away from anything good for us.
Politicians don’t want us understanding the powers of common law either. They will do whatever it takes to tarnish an association of anything good with common law. It’s to protect their pockets that a healthy interest in common law is discouraged. Another reason is that common law empowers people. An example is empowerment in the courts. UPMART has a class action on representation in the lower courts.
We should always represent ourselves in most cases.
It’s important we are able to have who we choose to represent us in court. When we are innocent of unfair charges we need to represent ourselves in court. An example is traffic fines. If there is no victim, then there is no crime, under common law. We can win by demonstrating a right to travel on the roads. Also by following our own instincts that we know right from wrong, truth and justice.
We can win by representing ourselves. By doing so we can put the legal system as we know it, on notice. We are able to stand our ground if we fully understand common law rights and human rights and know how to use the knowledge to our advantage in court.
To understand common law and how it’s associated with truth and justice causes a whole new world to be revealed. The so-called legal system of today and especially in our courts is not interested in justice for the innocent.
Statute law lawyers are not interested in truth and justice. They’re not interested simply because there’s no money in it. Instead they use our courts to make loads of money for themselves by defending the guilty and by getting the guilty off conviction.
If this concept is hard to understand I suggest reading Brett Dawson’s book, The Dirty Deeds of the Ratbag Profession. He’s a lawyer and explains the legal system of today in simple to understand language in his book.
A true meaning of Common Law and understanding of many other good laws in the universe is also taught in an UPMART Common Law Course (UCLC) by founder of Upmart, Malcolm McClure. Malcolm also teach that:
Common law is a human law.
Common law is the law of the community for the betterment of the community.
Common law is a good law so everyone wants to obey it. Today, unfortunately we’re only conscious of the bad laws made by legislators of the statute law. Bad laws have caused us to lose a concept of any law being a good law. A good law is one that’s enjoyable to obey and to be part of it’s overall structure.
Definitions of Common Law:
1. That which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the community. Oxford English Dictionary.
2. The unwritten law derived from the traditional law of England. Ibid OED
3. The unwritten law derived from the traditional law of England and as developed by judicial precedence, interpretation, expansion and modification: Dietrich V R 1992 177 CLR 292
Comments are welcomed. Tell us, what’s your idea of a good law under common law?